Anonymous Comments from Startups/Songwriters on Open Letter for MLC/DLC Settlement

We’re getting comments on the settlement of the Mechanical Licensing Collective and Digital Licensee Coordinator (two lyrical titles for songwriter masters…NOT), proclaimed in their cozy proceeding at the Copyright Royalty Board.  David discussed in his open letter to the Copyright Royalty Judges released over the weekend.

There was nary a startup to be seen as part of this negotiation so not surprisingly, some of the comments we got are from startups and everyone is worried about retaliation so commented anonymously.  Here’s a sample from startups:

The fee imposed by the biggest tech companies in the world on their competition is $5,000 for 5,000 recordings but $60,000 for 5,001 recordings?  WTF?  I never asked for this. Why doesn’t Spotify just write the check instead of all this penny pinching?

This is US only and is going to totally screw up my MFN deals with the labels if I use the blanket license because I have to match each label with the “fee”?  Thanks lawyers!

They keep saying this is like SoundExchange it is nothing like it. First off the yearly fee!  SoundExchange protects small webcasters and helps competition with a level playing field so you dont have another big rights payment.  What a sh*t show.

How can there be no public comment?  If the government sets a fee, don’t they have to put it for public comments and show back up.  This is like the British East India company.

Why would I pay $60,000 for US only?  For streaming only?  I pay for the startup costs?  Why don’t they pay for my startup costs?  Google & big guys started this thing I never wanted it. Let them pay for it.

Still trying to understand how this helps me…

This is the first I heard about the whole thing and they want more money?

From songwriters:

No one believes this is going to launch on time now I believe it even less.

So let me see… $60,000 yearly fee will increase or decrease the number of services competing for my songs? I will take a wild guess and say decrease.

Still trying to be positive about MMA but it gets harder all the time



Open Letter to Copyright Royalty Judges on the MLC/DLC Settlement

I’m posting my letter to the Copyright Royalty Judges about the Mechanical Licensing Collective “voluntary settlement” with the DLC.  It may be voluntary for some people, but it was negotiated after shutting out everyone else from the negotiation on a technicality. Trichordist readers will probably be very interested in the issues and may want to send their own complaint to the Judges.

After delays for over a year that scared off any competition (whether or not intentionally), now they want to jam it through the Copyright Royalty Judges without a public comment from the people that will be most affected.  Bad move because the public will comment anyway.

I call bullshit.  Plus an astonishing attempt to deny the Judges the legitimate opportunity to hear new ideas that they might want to take into account in their decision.  It is THEIR decision after all.  We are not governed by unaccountable lobbyists.

You may have heard that the MLC and DLC have decided on how much the rich guys are going to pay the songwriters after forcing out any independent songwriter groups from having a voice in the “proceeding”.  That maneuver prevented the Copyright Royalty Judges from hearing from independent songwriters and of course startups were nowhere to be seen, no doubt scared to death from challenging the big boys who can snap their hopes like twigs. (That is an old story.  Remember the Microsoft anonymous amici who were too scared to reveal their identities to complain about Microsoft’s anticompetitive business practices?(

The Judges, who are supposed to now bless the settlement and turn it into law, have one more chance to hear from songwriters, publishers, and startups who will have to live with this thing. 

The Judges have the power to open the settlement to public comment so the Judges may take into account any views from songwriters and startups brave enough to challenge their “betters” before they rule on the closed door settlement.  We all know they will hear from us after, particularly since the settlement just happened to get announced before the December 9 “reply comment” deadline for the Copyright Office’s proposed rules on the MLC.  It would be best to send your comments on the settlement directly to the Copyright Royalty Judges at since the Judges, not the Copyright Office, have the power to change the settlement for good cause and fundamental fairness.

Here is my letter to the Judges:

David C. Lowery

Dear Copyright Royalty Judges:

I have read the proposed settlement reached by the MLC and the DLC that was posted on the CRB site. Without commenting on the substance of the settlement, which has many, many holes, I respectfully wish to call the Judges attention to one particular section:

Adoption of the Settlement by the Copyright Royalty Judges

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 115(d)(7)(D)(v):

In lieu of reaching their own determination based on evaluation of relevant data, the Copyright Royalty Judges shall approve and adopt a negotiated agreement to establish the amount and terms of the administrative assessment that has been agreed to by the mechanical licensing collective and the digital licensee coordinator… except that the Copyright Royalty Judges shall have the discretion to reject any such agreement for good cause shown. An administrative assessment adopted under this clause shall apply to all digital music providers and significant nonblanket licensees engaged in covered activities during the period the administrative assessment is in effect.

Importantly, the settlement of this Proceeding is not subject to public comment.
See id. (noting that the Participants are the parties that have to agree to settle this Proceeding); see also 37 CFR § 355.4(c)(4) (outlining procedure by which only other participants, and no others, may file comments on a proposed settlement within five days of the filing of a proposed settlement); Order Granting Joint Motion to Modify the Case Scheduling Order (setting the schedule for non-settling participants, and no others, to comment on any proposed settlement). The Participants are pleased to have reached the Settlement, which meets the statutory requirements of Section 115(d)(7)(D) for the initial Administrative Assessment.

This is outrageous.

First of all, I’m not a lawyer but when I read the authority these people cite for barring comments from the people who have to deal with the consequences of what they have negotiated, I don’t think the Judges are prohibited from taking comments from the public on the settlement. In fact, I find this paragraph to be extraordinarily self serving and makes me ask who do these people think they are?

The Judges should take into account that no startup has been present or able to negotiate the many burdens placed on them by this settlement. In particular, they have not been able to be heard by the Judges on the scope of these financial burdens that their competitors—some of the richest multinational corporations in history—have unilaterally decided to place on them with no push back.

This isn’t to say that any would be brave enough to come forward and challenge their betters if given a chance. But they should at least be given a chance.

Plus, the Judges need only take notice of some of the comments filed by songwriter organizations with the Copyright Office (Docket COLC-2019-0002) to read for themselves that many songwriters do not feel they have been represented in this proceeding. If that is not “good cause shown,” I don’t know what is.

Respectfully, I think it would be a grave, grave mistake and an unfixable miscarriage of justice, to deny the public the opportunity to comment on this settlement. Because the public will comment, maybe not in the proceeding but comment they will and for a very long time.

I hope the Judges will not miss this opportunity to exercise their legitimate oversight role for both the DLC and the MLC.


David C. Lowery

Guest Post: MIC Coalition Filing Reveal: The Zombie Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act–@ArtistRights Watch

By Chris Castle

Remember the horrific Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act from the last Congress?  (See “The Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act: The Domesday Book Meets A Unicorn“.)

Well, guess what–it’s not really dead!  A little tea-leaf reading suggests that the MIC Coalition (one of the largest and most anticompetitive lobbying groups in history) have plans to amend the Music Modernization Act’s blanket license to all licensing verticals if they had their way.  That would include “general licensing” in bars and restaurants to satisfy their hotel, restaurant and “beverage” folks.  So there’s definitely some there there.


MIC Coaltion Members 2019

MIC Coalition Members

The MIC Coalition cartel filed a comment with the Copyright Office that makes one thing clear–this rule making is going to be a scorched earth donnybrook of epic proportions.

The big reveal in the MIC Coaltion’s filing is based on this passage in the legislative history for the Music Modernization Act:

Testimony provided by Jim Griffin at the June 10, 2014 Committee hearing highlighted the need for more robust metadata to accompany the payment and distribution of music royalties. With millions of songs now available to subscribers worldwide, technology also has a role to play through digital fingerprinting of a sound recording. However, there is no reliable, public database to link sound recordings with their underlying musical works. Unmatched works routinely occur as a result of different spellings of artist names and song titles….Music metadata has more often been seen as a competitive advantage for the party that controls the database, rather than as a resource for building an industry on.

The entire concept of maintaining a static look up database of not only all songs in the history of recorded music, but also all sound recordings in the history of recorded music that can be queried in real time is really not that different than the Domesday Book–when William the Conquerer made a big list of all property, people and chickens in England in the “Great Survey” in 1086.  Like the Domesday Book, the “musical works database” will be full of mistakes due to the dynamic nature of the things it is purporting to count.

But the reveal is the heaping praise on the horrific Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act which was designed to destroy the PRO system (just like the MIC Coalition):

In response to the Copyright Office recommendations, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner introduced the Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act, H.R. 3350, in July of 2017, which was cosponsored by several members of the House Judiciary Committee. The bill would provide for a database, housed at and overseen by the U.S. Copyright Office, to aid businesses and establishments that publicly perform musical works and sound recordings in identifying and compensating the holders of rights in those works. 

Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.

PRESS RELEASE: SoundExchange Updates Client Portal to Provide Faster Payments and Transparency


New Feature Introduces Self-Service Management for Overlapping Claims

WASHINGTON, DC – November 6, 2019 – SoundExchange today introduced a suite of new features to its online client portal, SoundExchange Direct (SXDirect), that provide music creators with increased control and transparency into their royalty accounts through greater self-service. The groundbreaking “Overlaps & Disputes” tool notifies rights owners when other parties make competing ownership claims, enabling them to resolve overlaps as they occur. The efficiencies provided in this tool will result in fewer royalties being held up by disputes and thus faster payments.

“We are committed to raising the bar for the industry by providing innovative solutions for music creators,” said Michael Huppe, CEO of SoundExchange. “Music creators deserve to be paid fairly and accurately, and these new capabilities ensure they receive their royalties faster, too.”

To date, SoundExchange has distributed more than $6 billion in royalties to music creators, including distributing nearly $1 billion in 2018 alone.

“SoundExchange empowers rights owners and their representatives by focusing on transparency and efficiency,” said Paul Smelt, Co-Founder and Director of Global Master Rights. “These major updates will provide greater insight into catalog usage and significantly improve the overlaps and disputes process, distinguishing SoundExchange as one of the most user-friendly collection management organizations in the world.”

The recent update significantly expands the tools available to rights owners, enabling them to manage overlapping claims and upload new sound recordings directly into the SXDirect portal:

  • Overlaps & Disputes: provides rights owners with instant notification when there are overlapping claims to a sound recording and provides them with the ability to maintain or relinquish claims using a dashboard in SXDirect.
  • Submit Recordings: provides rights owners with a dashboard in SXDirect where they can add new sound recordings by providing the International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) and related metadata. These new sound recordings receive immediate validation so that they can be immediately accepted into SoundExchange’s Repertoire Database and therefore become available to claim and associate rights.

“By introducing this portal update, SoundExchange is once again demonstrating they are the vanguard on transparency in the music industry. Combining this with their powerful new self-service features, empowers sound recording copyright owners to submit ISRCs, make new claims, and resolve overlaps faster to maximize their royalty streams with a spirit of collaboration,” said Rob Gruschke, Vice President of Global Collective Rights at Beggars Group Media.

Additional features were introduced that are available to all music creators who use the SXDirect portal:

  • Associated Recordings: provides a display of all sound recordings currently associated with the music creator’s account and the claim percentage for each track.
  • Search & Claim: provides a way to search SoundExchange’s complete database of sound recordings, which includes ISRCs provided by rights owners and tracks that have been reported to SoundExchange as played but have not yet been associated with a rights owner-provided ISRC.
  • Upload History: provides music creators with a history of files that have been uploaded to SXDirect. These files include “Search & Claim” carts or rights owner-submitted sound recordings.

“The targeted use of automation gives music creators greater control of their accounts through self-service.  In this way we ensure that the business of music keeps up with the pace of their creativity,” said Jonathan Bender, Chief Operating Officer at SoundExchange.

These updates are now available to all music creators who have SXDirect accounts. Account holders can learn how to use these features by reading a new series of posts published to SoundExchange’s blog.



Wyden Rhymes With Biden: Senator’s Finances and Son’s Hedge Funds Deserve Scrutiny

Is Ron Wyden an Idealistic Progressive or Just Another Sleazy Pol?

Sen Ron Wyden D-OR is the last congressional true believer in a completely unregulated wild-west cyber-libertarian-internet.  A “free internet” that works quite well for internet wolves, but not so much for the rest of us.  He seems to be the only guy left in the Senate willing to lay his credibility on the line to protect any and all internet bad actors. Is this radical idealism or is he just another politician pandering to rich and powerful interests?

I have already formed my opinion of Wyden. Sen Ron Wyden has been a relentless foe of copyright reform legislation that would benefit artists. And a champion of legislation that would benefit digital behemoths. Wyden opposed the Classics act and is one of two Senators currently opposing the CASE Act (the other is the kooky Sen Rand Paul). He sponsored the Orwellian named Internet Radio Fairness Act that would have slashed artist royalties more than fifty percent. This act would have benefitted a handful of multibillion-dollar tech companies. No one else.  Pure corporate welfare.  Fortunately, the bill was crushed. Wyden represents thousands of musicians that call Oregon home. Portland is arguably not far behind Austin TX as an independent music mecca. Aside from a handful of Silicon Valley engineers employed at server farms in the Eastern Oregon desert, he doesn’t represent Silicon Valley.  He did, however, grow up in Palo Alto in the heart of Silicon Valley.

This guy claims to be a progressive democrat, yet aside from some lip service on social issues, there is no evidence he is actually progressive.  Like Nike, the actual evidence is all to the contrary. Sweatshops and shilling for corporate monopolies is not a progressive value.  Now perhaps because I am an artist and I am directly harmed by Wyden’s devotion to moneyed interests in Silicon Valley, I am looking at this through a different lens than the “average” American. I obviously have my biases.

What is something objectively bad that all Americans can agree is bad? What can we look at that will resonate with average Americans?   Child sex trafficking? There are surely not two reasonable sides to this debate. Surely all Americans can agree it is horrific.  Let’s look at Wyden through this lens. A decent non-kooky senator would not oppose a narrow amendment of Sec 230 (FOSTA/SESTA). A narrow amendment to make Backpage and other internet platforms liable for blatant child sex trafficking on their sites, would they? And surely a decent non-kooky Senator wouldn’t stick their neck out to oppose an amendment overwhelmingly supported (97-2) by a bipartisan coalition of senators?

Yet Wyden did.  Wyden was one of two Senators to vote against FOSTA/SESTA and the only Senator to speak against FOSTA on the house floor. A rather dramatic and long speech. Read it here.

Why did all (non-kooky) Senators, other than Wyden see FOSTA/SESTA as a necessity?  As NPR explains:

Over the years, victims and their families brought case after case against Backpage — and lost. The website kept convincing judges across the country that Section 230 shielded it from liability for the posts of its users. Major digital-rights groups, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, argued that holding Backpage liable could have chilling effects for social media and other websites.

This bewildered Mazzio: “How is it possibly legal that a website that makes millions and millions of dollars has no accountability for this crime?” she says. “Section 230 has turned into a Teflon shield, not to protect free speech but to protect business revenue.”

The Supreme Court last year declined to hear victims’ appeal in the case of Backpage and Section 230.

Why did Wyden oppose FOSTA? Wyden’s speech on the Senate floor is telling. Wyden argues making these sorts of child sex trafficking ads illegal would drive this activity underground and make it harder to prosecute.  Sounds sort of reasonable. I guess. If you’re an idiot.  By Wyden’s logic:

We should allow dogfighting ads to make this activity easier to prosecute?

We should allow black-market Fentanyl and Oxycontin ads to make dealers easier to prosecute?

We should allow ads for fake securities, insurance, and other financial scams to make it easier to prosecute the fraudsters?

Why stop there? We should allow murder-for-hire ads on internet platforms to make hitmen easier to prosecute?

How bout snuff films?

Child porn?

And yes he really does make this argument:

I fear that the legislation before the Senate will be another failure. I fear it will do more to take down ads than take down traffickers. I fear it will send the bad guys beyond the grasp of law enforcement to the shadowy corners of the dark web, where everyday search engines don’t go, but where criminals find safe haven for their monstrous acts.

This is the democratic Senator from Portland Oregon making this argument. I went to UC Santa Cruz in the 1980s. Banana Slugs. We didn’t have grades. We had a gay Marxist mayor. We had the first non-gender specific bathroom protests. My girlfriend was in a play in which she played a man playing a woman. I sold alfalfa sprouts in college. Not any alfalfa sprouts but organic alfalfa sprouts.  Therefore I’m pretty sure Wyden’s argument above is not a progressive argument.

But Wyden doesn’t stop there. He also makes the dubious claim that internet giants like and backed this legislation because it cements their monopoly in place by burdening start-ups with new regulations. This is at best inaccurate.  While it is true that IBM supported this legislation, Facebook was at best ambivalent, almost all the other big tech companies, and crucially the search monopoly Google did not. Further, Google and Google executives actively funded groups (and academics) that opposed FOSTA.  And Wyden repeated their talking points nearly verbatim. As if he was simply a puppet.  I say this because a highly trained registered lobbyist would not have been as on point as Wyden. Clearly, Wyden will have a cushy post-Senate career as a corporate mouthpiece and lobbyist. If he doesn’t work directly for a tech giant.

The most damning evidence of Google’s opposition to FOSTA comes in a bumbling hamfisted admission at a Google shareholder meeting. In the video below Consumer Watchdog advocate John Simpson reads a letter from “Nicole S” a young woman featured in the horrifying child sex-trafficking documentary, I am Jane Doe.  In the letter, she asks Google why they are funding groups opposed to FOSTA. Eric Schmidt and other top Google executives squirm uncomfortably. Chairman Eric Schmidt is visibly angered by the end of the clip.  If the subject wasn’t so sickening it would be delightful.


Google clearly did not like being called out on its involvement in the orchestrated campaign that apparently included a US Senator.  In the end, Google lost and Wyden lost. But Wyden and Google managed to delay the bill for some time.  How many children were trafficked or even killed during this time? It is not hyperbole to say Wyden and Google may have blood on their hands. Coincidentally (or not) a few months after this video was filmed, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt resigned as a wave of allegations of sexual misconduct by top Google executives became public. Wyden is still a US Senator.  At least for the time being.

The Time I Met Sen Ron Wyden

I’ve written a lot about Senator Ron Wyden over the years. I think it may be of interest that I didn’t start out as a critic of Wyden. I criticized a bill he sponsored and he came looking for me!  It was November of 2012 and I had been invited to participate in a panel at The Future of Music Summit. The panel was titled “Radio Active” and we were debating the merits (or lack thereof) of the Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA). I had a number of criticisms of IRFA, mostly concerning the slashing of artist royalties. But I was also concerned about what appeared to be an unconstitutional muzzling of the speech of independent artists and songwriters.  I showed the slide below and argued that this part of the Internet Radio Fairness Act was written so broadly it would make any discussions of direct licensing and subsequent royalty rates among musicians a violation of the Sherman Act.

The century-old Sherman act was designed to break up trusts and cartels. It authorized the federal government to break up any businesses that prohibited competition. Wyden’s bill attempted to turn the act on its head and make it a tool to protect internet cartels from musicians.  Appalling to say the least. Again, I went to UC Santa Cruz and I don’t remember “protecting monopolies from workers asking for fair pay” as a key tenet of progressivism.  But I don’t know, I smoked a lot of weed back then, I could have missed something. But I digress.

About an hour after my panel,  Wyden came blustering into the conference, ostensibly for his keynote address. But as soon as he took the microphone he started asking who it was that said he (Wyden) was limiting free speech? He was pointing around the room. He is a tall man and I suppose he is physically intimidating. He was clearly angry. I have a terrible impulse to laugh in these sorts of situations. Despite this, I managed to keep a straight face and raise my hand. He asked me if I knew anything about his career and his unwavering support of free speech.  I didn’t know what to do other than read him one of the offending passages from his own bill:

Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1). 

This clearly took him by surprise and after hemming and hawing about boilerplate language for ephemeral copies(?) he conceded:

“I certainly would never ever support anything that would restrict free and open speech, particularly artists’ expression,” Wyden said. “If the consensus in the legal community is that this restricts the First Amendment, it will be a very short-lived provision.”

I appreciated the sentiment, but unfortunately for Wyden, this implied he didn’t know what was in his own bill. Not a good look. It’s an open secret on Capitol Hill that industry lobbyists, attorneys from trade groups, astroturfs and bought off academics often write the legislative language.  So who wrote this bill?  Pandora? SiriusXM? Paid lobbyists? Professor Google Money?

About a year later I was considering speaking at SF Music Tech. This conference is sponsored by a host of technology companies (but most notably Google) When I spoke to one of the organizers of this conference he informed me that his “sponsors” wouldn’t appreciate me speaking there because (among other things) I had been “incredibly rude to a US Senator.”

What? I don’t even know where to start with that! SF and the Tech Industry? I thought these guys and that town loved disruption! What is more disruptive than an indie musician taking on a Senator that’s been in Washington 30+ years! I see. It’s like the old Mr. Show skit featuring an employee training tape for the Marilyn Mozzarella Pizza Rella Pie Parlours “Don’t forget to break some rules!.. but don’t really break any rules.” No wonder the SF Music Tech Summit was held at the Hotel Kabuki!

But the whole episode got me thinking about Wyden’s relationship with these Silicon Valley companies. Yes, Wyden did grow up in Palo Alto in Silicon Valley.  I’m sure there are a number of one or two-degree separations from tech executives. But there was a hint of “our guy” in the way he was being treated. If this were 1920s Chicago I could easily imagine someone saying “You insulted our bought and paid for Senator!” Not that I’m saying he is bought and paid for. Nor does this article offer any definitive evidence of some such scheme. But I was getting the impression Wyden was Silicon Valley’s Senator. This gave me the idea to poke around in the Senator’s campaign finances.

“The Hedge Fund is Coming From Inside The DC TownHouse!” Or “Don’t Go Down Into The Basement Hedge Fund!” 

Which title do you like better?  I couldn’t decide so I used them both. Might as well use this as an opportunity to poll you.

I accidentally stumbled across the story above when I was researching Wyden donors. D.E. Shaw caught my eye. Shaw has an eponymous 80 billion dollar hedge fund. So Wyden’s son Adam does an internship for a campaign donor. Okay. Nothing illegal. But then when he’s finished “someone” gives the kid 3 million dollars to start a hedge fund in dad’s basement?


If that investment came from D.E. Shaw or any other campaign donor (who else would it come from?) that could be a campaign fund violation. Or outright bribery.  Or maybe not. I mean sure, plenty of people give 3 million dollars to a 26 year who spent a few months making coffee or fancy excel spreadsheets for Wall Street Brahmin. Most journalists who reported on the story clearly had an eyebrow arched. Here Business Insider reports

But a D.E Shaw spokesperson assured Bloomberg, “Adam went through the same rigorous vetting and interview process as all other D.E. Shaw group interns.”

The reason observers might think otherwise is because David Shaw has donated thousands of dollars to Senator Wyden’s election and re-election campaigns in 2004 and 2010. Shaw and his wife each gave the maximum $4,800 each that they’re allowed to donate for any single election cycle, to Wyden.

Shaw also contributed $5,000 in 2010 to Holding Onto Oregon’s Priorities, a political action committee established by Wyden, according to

And apparently, the younger Wyden had a pretty good first year. As Bloomberg reported in 2011:

Wyden’s best personal trade last year was an investment in IDT Corp. starting in February, when the Newark, New Jersey, telecommunications company traded at an average of $4.84 a share, he said. IDT now is at $23.90

Adam Wyden’s fortuitous timing on IDT shares.

IDT. The company was a total mess at the time of the younger Wyden’s bet.  Good timing on his part. I guess. I found only two curious things about this investment. According to several DC insiders, Senator Wyden was once quite close to IDT’s chief lobbyist at the FCC. A guy named John Windhausen. Funny name. Should have been a politician with that name. There were some FCC decisions during this time that seemed to have benefitted IDT. This may have sent the stock up. Or maybe not. But also odd, Adam Wyden in a fairly long interview talked about his big gain on IDT but he doesn’t mention once the company’s main business: Prepaid calling cards. A business heavily regulated by the FCC and highly dependent on favorable rulings from the commission. A small change in interconnection fees/rules would make or break this company.

Do Spies Go With That Shake?

Spoiler Alert: ADW Capital Management and ADW Capital Partners together own approximately 20% of this defense/intelligence contractor.  But the investment is tucked inside a restaurant point-of-sale (POS) software company. Senator Wyden is on the Intelligence Committee. 

I wrote about all this ADW Capital Partners nonsense a while back but no one seemed to think it was unusual a Senator’s son had a hedge fund in the basement. So I sort of gave up. We seemed well on our way to the same sort of senatorial kleptocracy that destroyed ancient Rome and this was not even a sideshow to the main circus. I get it. No One Cares.

The Senator has since continued to make life miserable for artists.  Recently he and the kooky senator from Kentucky put a “hold” on the Case Act in the Senate. The CASE Act is a voluntary copyright small claims court proposal. It enjoys widespread support in the House (410-6) and Senate. But it will never be voted on because Senate rules allow a single Senator to block a bill.  That seems unconstitutional to me as well.

Whenever Wyden does something like this I poke around in his campaign finances.  And this time just for the hell of it, I decided to look at what his son’s hedge fund was doing. I hadn’t checked in a while and was surprised to see  ADW Capital Management and ADW Capital Partners now have over 300 million dollars. Is it any surprise a Senator’s son can raise $300 million dollars?  Credence Clearwater Revival would not be surprised. He also has hired one employee since his basement days.  So two folks manage a 300 million dollar hedge fund out of a 700 square foot suite in Manhattan.  I guess that’s normal.

ADW Capital Management and ADW Capital Management Partners Holdings according to

I went to to look up the holdings. An odd set of companies.  A very small set of companies. Four companies in total. Plus something derivative traders call a “covered call” strategy.  I’ve never seen a hedge fund with such concentrated holdings. The second hedge fund has three of the same four companies.  Weird. He’s also doing quite poorly this year. But hey, maybe there is some real science behind this. You don’t make money doing what everyone else does.

RACE is Ferrari.  And it’s coupled with the sale of “calls.”  Essentially a bet the stock won’t rise.

EVI is a dry cleaning supply, equipment, service, and franchise business. Mostly in Carribean and South/Central America.

SIC is basically a distributor of stone countertops and such.


The last is ParTechnology which seems to be a maker of restaurant point of sales software. As I was typing this into a search engine I got “PAR government” as an auto-suggestion. I assumed it must be a similarly named unrelated company. Because PAR Technology is a restaurant point of sales software company and there is no mention of a defense and intelligence division on their website. However, a quick search of the SEC website turned up a Form 10-Q that confirmed PAR Government was indeed a subsidiary of the restaurant point of sales company. Interesting.

According to the website, in 2018 Par Technology won 27 defense contracts for a total of $21,652,632. Over the last two decades, this company has won 187 defense contracts worth almost $300 million. This amount would not include pure intelligence agency contracts as generally those are classified.

There is also another subsidiary of ParTechnology called Rome Research Corporation. This is another defense intelligence contractor based at the same address.  According to this company has received a whopping $567,265,220 in defense/intelligence contracts since 2000.  Since they share the same parent company it is possible some contracts are counted twice. But I didn’t immediately see any overlap.

Okay. I guess I’m burying the lede here, but it would appear that the defense/intelligence subsidiaries discreetly tucked into PAR Technology Corporation are not the tail at all. No, they seem to be the dog. And between ADW Capital Partners and ADW Capital Management,  Adam Wyden, son of Senator Wyden, controls 20% of these companies.

And guess who sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?

JFC! Shouldn’t someone investigate this shit?

Also, next time Wyden takes a stand on civil liberties, government spying or drone strikes? Remember it’s utter bullshit. His son seems to be waist-deep in all of it.  So Sen Wyden doesn’t know? I don’t believe it for a minute.



Simplify Registration and Costs for MLC

As the clock ticks down for the MLC under the Music Modernization Act, the Copyright Office oversight role may require some innovation on the global rights database mandated by the MMA.  One way would be to harmonize copyright registrations with registrations for the Mechanical Licensing Collective.  (Songwriters outside the US may be puzzled by all this registering due to the prohibition on formalities in the Berne Convention, but right or wrong that MMA requires songwriters to register with the MLC if they want to get paid under the blanket license.)

Remember that you don’t have to register your songs to get copyright protection, but a lot of people do.  Here’s what the Copyright Office says about registration:

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?

Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney’s fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within five years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.

So while you don’t have to register to get copyright protection, you will have to somehow get into the MLC’s database if you want to get paid by the MLC (and file an IRS Form W-9, etc.).  But–if you are going to register your song for copyright, why should you have to start over again to register for the MLC?

It seems like a simple solution for the Copyright Office to harmonize these separate but related registrations would be to have the Copyright Office online registration system have a check box to allow you to sign up with the MLC.  Simply a box to check that would autopopulate your MLC registration along with other docs you might need for the MLC (like the W-9 the MLC will no doubt have to get for every songwriter they pay.)

If there’s a cost for this extra IT, that cost could easily be charged back to the services to be paid through the “administrative assessment”.  The first assessment is currently being litigated, so there’s no time like the present to get this issue in front of the Copyright Royalty Judges.  Plus, there’s no reason for the MLC registration to be delayed while the copyright registration is processed since the right to get paid under the blanket license is not contingent on the copyright registration.  Songwriters wouldn’t be charged to register with the MLC because the copyright registration fee is already established for the copyright registration alone.

And of course, the MLC could have a reciprocal sign up for copyright registration as part of the MLC registration process for songwriters who start there first.  Again, all that IT cost should be paid by the services.

Seems like a no brainer.

As National Security Concerns Grow Twitter Gives TikTok Control of Your Twitter Account

No, this is not a joke.  Try it yourself. Try to sign up for TikTok with your Twitter account. Twitter basically lets TikTok make your account part of a TikTok twitter botnet. Don’t be surprised if your twitter account starts reporting tweets that mention Winnie the Pooh. It is stunning the permissions that Twitter grants to the social media company, as evidence grows the company is being used as an influence machine for the Chinese state. Maybe it is just because Twitter feels a special kinship to TikTok They both refuse to license music.

As Foreign Policy magazine noted a year ago:

“ByteDance has already been repeatedly forced to bend the knee to party authority at home. Most punishingly, in April 2018 the government compelled ByteDance to shut down its popular “Neihan Duanzi” (“inside jokes”) app for good due to its “vulgar” content. In response, Zhang issued a letter of self-criticism where he said, “Our product took the wrong path, and content appeared that was incommensurate with socialist core values.” He also promised that the firm would in the future “Further deepen cooperation with authoritative [official party] media, elevating distribution of authoritative media content, ensuring that authoritative [official party] media voices are broadcast to strength.

Around that same time CNN Business reported:

“After getting rapped over the knuckles for promoting what authorities called “vulgar content” on its popular video and news apps in April, ByteDance announced it would hire 2,000 more people to review content. The job ads noted that party members and candidates with “strong political sensitivity” would be preferred.”

Then at the end of September The Guardian in the UK reported on a leaked content moderation memo:

“TikTok, the popular Chinese-owned social network, instructs its moderators to censor videos that mention Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, or the banned religious group Falun Gong, according to leaked documents detailing the site’s moderation guidelines.”

What’s going on here? I don’t know about you, but maybe congress should give Jack Dorsey an invitation to come in and explain why he’s turning over US citizen’s twitter accounts to a Chinese company with deep ties to the Chinese government.  First question: How many Twitter accounts has TikTok been given access to? 

National Security Investigation: TikTok Finds Itself a Stranger in the Alps

Readers of this blog know that we have been focusing on the mass infringing music video site TikTok. This company and employees have utter contempt for artists, yet their service is absolutely useless without our music. What assholes right? What is less well known is that TikTok’s parent ByteDance is a $73 billion Shanghai-based company staffed and moderated by thousands of Chinese Communist Party members.  So essentially this is an arm of the Chinese state propaganda machine.  And these fucks can’t afford to license music?

So it was with some gratification that I saw reports that The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has opened an investigation into the purchase of (original name of TikTok)  by Byte Dance.  Apparently, a number of congressmen became concerned about TiKTok and asked CFIUS to open an investigation. I’d like to think that all of you that retweeted my thread on TikTok a couple weeks ago had something to do with it.

Byte Me TikTok.


Self Published Songwriters: Claim your Rhapsody class action settlement money!

Just another quick reminder.  The Rhapsody(now rebranded Napster) class-action settlement claim portal is open.  Songwriters that registered their works with the copyright office and had their work streamed at least once on the service (during the covered period) will receive $35* per work (pro-rated by ownership share).  This is many multiples of what the Spotify class action pays out per work.

Further, the Rhapsody class-action settlement, unlike Spotify settlement, also pays on unregistered works. If your unregistered works were streamed at least 10 times during the covered period the self-published songwriter can claim $1* per work.

I’ve looked at catalogues of a number of small indie publishers and songwriters that will likely receive several thousand dollars. This is real money.  The settlement closes 12-31-2019.

Claims here:

If you have a bulk claim, you may contact the settlement administrators for help with this: Here.

*There is a $10,000,000 cap on claims so it is possible that if claims exceed $10,000,000 the amount per work could be reduced downward.

Make the Spambots the Issue: A Quick Demo of How to Hijack Google-Funded Spambots

A “Theodore Kaczynski” from Lincoln Montana signs a Google-funded astroturf petition over and over again. 

Google-funded and affiliated astroturfs have mounted a spambot campaign targeting Senators to vote against the CASE Act.  The CASE Act (voluntary small claims copyright court) passed the house 410-6.  Google and their allies are worried because independent artists and creators might now have a decent shot at enforcing their copyright.   Corporate backed astroturfs first mounted a wild disinformation campaign against the CASE Act.  See this blog here.

When that didn’t work they launched a series of easily automated web forms designed to deluge Senators with emails, tweets, facebook posts, phone calls, and messages on the senator’s websites.  As we saw with the FCC Net Neutrality battle, these forms leave us with tons of fake comments.  According to Pew Research, 94% of the 22 million comments to FCC on Net Neutrality were identical to hundreds, thousands, even millions of other emails.  Spambots are screwing with our democracy.  How can our representatives hear what their constituents really think if they are deluged with spam?

As has always been the case,  best we can do is call our Senators (and don’t use a script.)

However, in the meantime anytime you find one of these forms below?  Maybe replace the canned message with a message that lets the Senator’s office know it’s simply a Spambot from one of these Astroturfs. You don’t have to lie about anything. Use your real name. Tell em it’s spam.  Make the Spambots the issue. Eventually, maybe these astroturf will stop using these forms if every Senator knows they are spam, and we can go back to our old only partially dysfunctional democracy.

Every web form I’ve found are curiously defective in the same way: you can usually refresh the page and sign, email, tweet, call with the same message over and over again.  At top of this blog, I take one of these bullshit petitions and have Ted Kaczynski sign it over and over again leaving the exact same comment each time.  Hope you enjoy.